The UAE just banned social media for children under 15. Teens aged 15 and 16 can still access platforms, but with content filters and parental controls in place. Companies have a year to figure out how to make it happen.

And the UAE is far from alone. Australia kicked things off in December 2025, becoming the first country to block under-16s from Instagram, TikTok, YouTube, and the rest. Since then, it has been a domino effect — Indonesia, Spain, France, Denmark, Norway, Turkey have all followed or announced plans to. A global mood shift is clearly underway.

In the UAE, the numbers make the conversation feel especially pressing: 97% of children aged 5 to 8 here regularly use digital devices. Most of them are on screens before they even start school. Local experts support the ban, but are quick to add that rules alone won't cut it — digital literacy, involved parents, and platforms that actually take responsibility all need to be part of the picture.

We asked three mothers — each with kids under 15 — living in the UAE what they actually think.

There is a real problem — and it is not just social media. In online games, too, adults regularly communicate with children. There are a lot of cases where kids get talked into handing over their mother's card details, a phone number, all of that. On top of that, the nervous system isn't fully formed yet, thinking is more flexible, and so it is much easier to influence a child and get them to do what you want. There is also the risk of predators. And honestly, there is a lot of unhealthy stuff out there in general.

So I would say this initiative actually resonates with me.

We don't have that problem yet — my son is 11 and isn't pushing to get on social media. He watches YouTube, and that is about it. No accounts of his own. We have a four-hour daily screen time limit on games, and both his phone and iPad are on parental controls with time limits I set. The bad news is that kids know how to get past the block. So you can't rely on that alone — you need to think about what else fills the time. Swimming, clubs, activities. He is not exactly thrilled about it, but that is how it is.

One incident that did happen: a stranger wrote to him on Roblox. It didn't go anywhere serious, and we caught it quickly. But it happened.

As for whether the ban will actually work — I don't know. Kids don't fully understand the consequences yet. I think it will only work if parents back it up from their side too, and make sure it is actually being followed at home.

I think there are genuine concerns. There is a lot of content online that can be harmful — unrealistic standards, cyberbullying, inappropriate material, things that affect a child's behaviour and self-esteem. But I don't think social media itself is the problem. The issue is how it is used and whether it is monitored.

Personally, I tend to favour freedom over censorship whenever possible. A nationwide ban feels too drastic to me. I believe parents should play the primary role in deciding what their children can access — provided they are actually involved and paying attention.

Each of my three children has had a very different relationship with social media, and that tells you something. My daughter, who is now 20, started using it in her early teens, around 13. My 16-year-old son uses it occasionally — mainly TikTok and Snapchat — but he is far more into his PlayStation. And my youngest, who is 10, is actually the most engaged. He follows influencers, watches short reels, uses Snapchat to talk to friends.

Because every child is so different, we have adapted our approach accordingly. We try to stay involved — know which platforms they are on, keep an eye on what they are exposed to, and keep the conversation open rather than imposing blanket rules.

One thing I feel strongly about: social media can be genuinely useful when used well. My youngest learned a remarkable amount of English through screen time — mainly YouTube — at a very early age. His comprehension and speaking improved to the point where he was communicating in English comfortably well before most kids his age. That wouldn't have happened as naturally without digital content.

Of course, I have concerns. Inappropriate content, contact with people who don't have good intentions, online bullying, things that push kids toward risky or aggressive behaviour — it is all real. There are influences online that can make a child do things they would never normally do, or feel inadequate about themselves.

In my opinion, parental involvement is far more effective than a ban. Technology is part of modern life. Rather than trying to eliminate access entirely, it makes more sense to teach children how to use these platforms responsibly — with parental controls and guidance where needed. Education and communication are likely to have a more lasting impact than prohibition alone.

Children are not mature enough to understand the risks and dangers of social media — no matter how much parents try to explain them. So I am genuinely happy about this ban. I think it is a positive step to protect children during their most vulnerable years.

My children don't have phones and don't use social media. In our family, screens aren't part of the daily routine. They are allowed a little screen time on weekends, but otherwise, we keep it very limited.

If they were on social media, my biggest worries would be exposure to inappropriate content, cyberbullying, online predators, and the impact on their mental health and self-esteem. There are influences online that can push children toward things they would never normally do — or make them feel inadequate about themselves.

I can see some benefits for older teenagers and adults — staying connected, accessing information — but I struggle to see many benefits for young children that outweigh the risks.

And I don't think parental supervision alone is enough. Kids are smart. They find ways around restrictions. Parents need support, and an age-based ban provides an important layer of protection that individual families simply can't replicate on their own.